The New "Fake News"

You know what they say: what's old is new again.

Sometimes I Google myself. Not because I believe there’s anything juicy being written about me, but because there’s moments I need to find a story I’ve written and it’s easier to write out my name + the publication in order to find the link. Recently, when I Googled my name curious to see what popped up, I saw this:

At first glance, you may not notice anything odd. So let’s take a closer look, specifically at the articles:

All of these posts were posted four days ago (at the time I wrote this — there are new stories available now). If you know anything about me, you’ve likely clocked why this is bizarre, but if you don’t: I haven’t worked at POPSUGAR since I quit in July 2019. It’s not totally out of the blue: as someone with a digital writing career, I know my content would be exploited for years to come, long after I may not be affiliated with the publication — especially as the face of the beauty vertical.

What I did find odd was when I clicked on these individual stories, they did not indicate that they were reposts. In fact, the original post dates from 8 years ago are disclosed at the top of the post.

This one is from 2015 is about four vloggers that created a Sailor Moon group costume… for Halloween. (Note the October publish date.) The post at the time was easy to whip up and would likely perform well for the Buzzfeed-era social news trend, which is why it’s short and sweet. I wondered why this would be reposted in June — back then, we would seed Halloween content in July on Pinterest because people began planning their costumes and decor then; maybe they’re getting a head start on that content. But when perusing the POPSUGAR Beauty homepage, it doesn’t show up in the feed.

Jennifer Lopez is always clickable, but why rehash her AMA looks from 2015? Again, it’s not available on the homepage.

This story and accompanying video is the only one I saw on the homepage. (The original thumbnail has been replaced with a stock image.) It’s quite possibly my most popular post from POPSUGAR; I wrote it lightyears ago before the term “dermaplaning” hit the beauty zeitgeist; eventually, I filmed 3 different videos about it. (Content is content!) So no, I’m not surprised that this is being reposted, because likely if it’s being pushed on social as well, it’s going to cause a slew of comments (read: outrage/opinions) ranging from “lots of women shave their face” to “why is this a confession?” and likely will devolve into a conversation about hormones, PCOS, and a variety of other things. In 201X, when I first wrote this, it was the beginning of the aforementioned Buzzfeed era, and I penned it thinking of only myself, writing it as a first-person account of a straight cisgender woman. If I had published it now, like this byline would lead people to infer, I would not have used this headline.

This post has been edited, but how would you know that? When it gets into the how to shave your face portion, another editor interviewed an expert on what to do — admittedly useful. (I think in the original I explained the dos/don’ts myself; alas I am not an esthetician or doctor.) But it’s not my writing and it’s not part of my “personal essay” as it’s tagged as. Further, there’s an inclusion of a $200 vibrating face shaver that was added — a product I have vocalized many times that I feel is a total waste of money — likely in order to get affiliate commission.

I want to be clear that I am not calling out any editor or writer who was in charge of or executed these reposts or changes. I know the pressure they are under to hit KPIs and get clicks.

However, this is problem, and I hate it! I do not work at POPSUGAR and I haven’t since I left four years ago. Publicists are pitching me about stories I wrote years ago and mention POPSUGAR when it comes to my recent work, and now I realize these reposts are at the root of those pitches.

We are living in a time where people do not know how to trust online media, and also in a time where writers in particular are fighting for rights and ownership over their work, especially against things like AI changing work they have delivered. This isn’t exactly the same as that, but it does beg the question about “ownership” when it comes to bylines, and what is true and real when it comes to online media.

I’ll share another example. I wrote a story for a publication in 2019 about a popular tattoo trend and I interviewed two experts for the story: Chrissy*, a licensed expert in Los Angeles that I knew personally and had trusted with my own skin, and a doctor based out of New York.